17 Days: A Response To Euro Today 8/21


17 Days: A Response To Euro Today 8/21
Written by HEM
President of Europeia
​

Article is a reply to 08/21/16 EuroToday on EBC Radio​

Just two weeks ago, I had a conversation with President Trinnien that would change the trajectory of the rest of the term. One of my newest, but closest, friends in Nationstates told me that he was going through significant stressors in real life and would need to step down from the Presidency. His goals, his hopes, his aspirations, and those of the region were going to be passed down from him to me.

Up to that point, I hadn't spent much time in the limelight. I very much saw myself a technocrat Vice President, working behind the scenes to establish a project that people have been skeptical and critical of since the start. I was working on an almost daily basis with the Cabinet: first trying to set an appropriate timetable for my ambitious project, and then hiring a deputy who would help me achieve our goals, and finally setting the Internship program's curriculum and goals.

While I tried to keep the public in the loop, it was difficult because our daily discussions were around tiny details and not big picture. We already had the big picture — we had to figure out how to make it work. Setting the foundation of any new endeavor is not a sexy process, but it is an incredibly long and ornery one. There were many times I felt tremendous sympathy for President Anumia and Minister Lethen who were constantly hounded during the establishment of the GAP about more progress updates — but there were no "updates" to give.

However, after trudging through a week without Wi-Fi, we finally began to see progress in the program. We had our first four interns, and they were doing tremendous work. Ministers were starting to get on-board with the program, and they were finding new and innovative ways to get interns involved in tasks within their department.

And then Trinnien resigned.

Suddenly, I was thrust from my project-based passion initiative before the entire region as President. I had to figure out how to reconfigure the Cabinet to ensure that Europeia could keep up the accomplishments we have seen under President Trinnien. I also hoped to make a mark of my own.

My first priority was to keep going while causing as little disruption as possible. I didn't want to overhaul the status quo or overthrow what was working. To that end, I immediately decided that I would elevate Common-Sense Politics from his advisory Chief of Staff role to Vice President. His foreign policy savvy would be invaluable to my administration, and I knew I could count on him to give free and frank advice.

I also knew that I needed Rand to step up into the role of full-time Civil Service manager. As President, I would not have time to help him out and represent the program in the Cabinet.

Then of course, we know what happens next. The Senate, in a surprise move, rejected my second official act as President and refused to approve the commission of Minister Rand. As the clock ticked, I knew that the Internship Program could not succeed without Rand's steady hand working seamlessly within the Tomlinson. I set off to convince Senators, one-by-one, to give this program and nominee a second chance.

I knew I was hemorrhaging political capitol in this fight, but I also knew that without a Cabinet-level supervisor, the Internship Program — and the new integration opportunity it represented — would be a failure. Many urged me to appoint Rand as Civil Service head as a deputy only, warning that a loss here would cripple my mandate for the rest of the already short term.

But for me, this wasn't a political fight — it was a fight for an innovative program that I believed in. It was a fight for our newcomers who were slipping through the cracks. Going into a second nomination process, I knew the odds were a crapshoot, with most Senators telling me that that they could not promise to vote one way or another.

And ultimately, I'd like to believe that that passion shone through the politics, and the Senators decided to give me a chance. Since then, Rand has been working tirelessly to build the Civil Service into an enduring program. He has reformed the internal reporting structures to ensure that no interns are lost in the shuffle, and has created data spreadsheets that will track every intern and their progress in their region, giving us hard numbers to back up our progress. Not a day has gone by where I regret fighting for him, and fighting for the program.

For me, every day in this job has been a learning process — every single day I have learned something new about being a good President. But the work I have seen from my Cabinet, our citizens, and even those who oppose my agenda has inspired me. While I go to bed tired, I am more encouraged about Europeia than I have ever been before.

For those of you who listened to the latest Euro Today podcast, you heard a different story. You heard a story about an administration that is beleaguered in inactivity, that arranges Q&A's solely to hide from accountability, that is engaging in petty politics, that has refused to innovate, and is *possibly* trying to mislead newcomers by congratulating an Interior Ministry for their hard work recruiting.

(Around 33:00 it is also erroneously stated that I supposedly had an interview in which I claimed to "refuse to compromise" with the Senate, which was wholly untrue).

I will say that this is not the Europeia I believe we live in. I do not believe that we should be more fixated on how many names a President lists in a speech than how many new citizens engage in a festival. I do not believe we should turn a blind eye to a brand new program, and then claim that there is no innovation. I do not believe that we should complain about little happening, and then question why there is "late term" stuff even happening.

And that's not to say that we don't have problems. In communications we need to be putting out more written content, and in culture we need to find more innovative ways to express our cultural energy. We need to completely overhaul how we see festivals, and we need to do it today. We need to find more ways to utilize the World Affairs hub, and we need to find ways to groom sailors into our next Grand Admirals (this position has been one of the most static position in history).

And that's not to say I haven't had shortcomings as a leader. I have. But despite what others may tell you, I promise I will spend every day left in this term working for you. And if you have more questions, please, visit my Press Conference
 
Click to expand...
HEM said:
I think something that needs to reiterated here is that nobody should even feel bad about bashing (if that's what happened). Opinions are opinions, and they have every right to be shouted from EBC Radio or wherever else. (There were a few comments I thought a little unfair, but that's politics, and I pointed them out in my column).

But I thought an alternative story would be valuable, and so here it is.
Click to expand...
I don't feel bad about any criticism, I'm somewhat perplexed by what I perceive as points of view that we went into this show with an intent, rather than we found something that we had similar views on.
I have no problem's with, and genuinely appreciate, you making a counter point, I however do object to language and phrasing that implies we had a narrative to push, or that one side is true and the other is therefore false. we were providing an interpretation not a story, and while it may not have been your intent the points of view from you and subsequent posters has made it seem that we had an agenda and points to score in the broadcast, that what we said was inherently untrue, it makes it seem like an us vs them situation.
 
Cpt.Carrot said:
HEM said:
I think something that needs to reiterated here is that nobody should even feel bad about bashing (if that's what happened). Opinions are opinions, and they have every right to be shouted from EBC Radio or wherever else. (There were a few comments I thought a little unfair, but that's politics, and I pointed them out in my column).

But I thought an alternative story would be valuable, and so here it is.
Click to expand...
I don't feel bad about any criticism, I'm somewhat perplexed by what I perceive as points of view that we went into this show with an intent, rather than we found something that we had similar views on.
I have no problem's with, and genuinely appreciate, you making a counter point, I however do object to language and phrasing that implies we had a narrative to push, or that one side is true and the other is therefore false. we were providing an interpretation not a story, and while it may not have been your intent the points of view from you and subsequent posters has made it seem that we had an agenda and points to score in the broadcast, that what we said was inherently untrue, it makes it seem like an us vs them situation.
Click to expand...
I don't think — and please correct me if I'm wrong — that I made any insinuations that there was some sort of "agenda" here. It just so happened that the two panelists — and the host at points — had the same opinions. That is what this piece hoped to correct, adding another opinion. What I take issue with, are some of the specific comments in the program — not the composition, format, or execution of the program itself.

I hope I am being clear here, because I cannot emphasize this point emphatically enough.
 
HEM said:
(Around 33:00 it is also erroneously stated that I supposedly had an interview in which I claimed to "refuse to compromise" with the Senate, which was wholly untrue).

I will say that this is not the Europeia I believe we live in. I do not believe that we should be more fixated on how many names a President lists in a speech than how many new citizens engage in a festival. I do not believe we should turn a blind eye to a brand new program, and then claim that there is no innovation. I do not believe that we should complain about little happening, and then question why there is "late term" stuff even happening.
Click to expand...
My problem with this piece isn't that HEM is creating a counter-argument, it's that I feel he is misrepresenting what we stated on the show to fit his own narrative. First off, I'll point out that the interview I was referencing does say exactly what I said it does here when you say "I tried to address each Senator's specific concerns and make a case for the Civil Service and for Rand. They were difficult conversations, because pretty much nobody was willing to commit to changing their vote. So when I went forward with the second nomination, it was a real gamble, because I didn't know if I had the votes or not." Then I looked at the Senate confirmation thread when you talked to Kuramia here and said "In all honesty, based on my recollection of our conversation, I don't think your specific concerns are addressed. I believe I have put forward the best evidence I can that this is the best office, that Rand is the best person, and that this is the best time."

Putting both of those things together to me says that it seems like you didn't compromise, and you are just putting forward what you have already put forward.

The next point, when did we say that festivals aren't important? We stated we wish Carrot was given more credit in your speech, and that Culture has been doing well, if I recall. Also, if you are calling the Newcomer of the Month program a "new program", if you listen to our discussion we clearly state that we like the program, but wish it was put in place earlier, because it will not have as much impact now as it would have earlier. That's not really turning a blind eye, that's a valid criticism.

It's easy to listen to a piece and have your own opinions, but I'd appreciate not being misrepresented by the President in an EBC article, when our counter-proof is buried in ninety minutes of audio programming, and much less easy to fact-check.
 
This is from the actual interview that I had:

"I tried to address each Senator's specific concerns and make a case for the Civil Service and for Rand. They were difficult conversations, because pretty much nobody was willing to commit to changing their vote. So when I went forward with the second nomination, it was a real gamble, because I didn't know if I had the votes or not."
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with refusing to compromise. This is me saying I talked to people and it was a gamble because nobody committed. When I spoke to Senator Kuramia on the floor, I was telling her that my new nomination did not speak to her specific concerns as I understood them. That is not equivalent to refusing to compromise, which was something I have emphasized time and time again that I tried to do with the second nomination. I understand what you are saying, but I think is is very unfair to claim on a radio show that I said in an interview that I wasn't going to compromise. Because I have been trying to explain to the region, how, in exact terms, I was pouring sweat trying to compromise.

The next point, when did we say that festivals aren't important? We stated we wish Carrot was given more credit in your speech, and that Culture has been doing well, if I recall.
Click to expand...

My point was that there was a lot more concern given toward nitpicking about the smaller details than trying to critique the bigger problems (i.e. the role of festivals in our region). And that's fine, right? You can say whatever you want. Free speech and free expression are great. But I can disagree with what you are saying, and the narrative you are saying it within.

Also, if you are calling the Newcomer of the Month program a "new program", if you listen to our discussion we clearly state that we like the program, but wish it was put in place earlier, because it will not have as much impact now as it would have earlier. That's not really turning a blind eye, that's a valid criticism.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was talking about the entire internship program — which is one of the biggest innovations we have seen in Europeia on this scale for quite a while. Yet it is always forgotten when we talk about how "little innovation" there has been in this term.
 
I'll just add this: I've always been of the thought that the Ministry of Communkcations, EBC and Mixlr included, is not the appropriate forum for attacking the administration. That's best left to private media. I'm also surprised the Minister would allow that to happen, as they serve at the request and pleasure of the president.

I understand that it has been a part of Europeian culture to do so, but I think probably from a lack of oversight rather than policy. That kind of broadcast is best left to private media, imo.
 
Deepest House said:
I'll just add this: I've always been of the thought that the Ministry of Communkcations, EBC and Mixlr included, is not the appropriate forum for attacking the administration. That's best left to private media. I'm also surprised the Minister would allow that to happen, as they serve at the request and pleasure of the president.
Click to expand...
What? Is the Minister supposed to brief everyone before they hop on Mixlr and only allow for people uncritical of the Administration to be on air?
 
HEM said:
I don't think — and please correct me if I'm wrong — that I made any insinuations that there was some sort of "agenda" here. It just so happened that the two panelists — and the host at points — had the same opinions. That is what this piece hoped to correct, adding another opinion. What I take issue with, are some of the specific comments in the program — not the composition, format, or execution of the program itself.

I hope I am being clear here, because I cannot emphasize this point emphatically enough.
Click to expand...
That wasn't directed specifically at you, maybe "language and phrasing that can interpreted" would have been more appropriate wording. It is a matter of what people see.

For those of you who listened to the latest Euro Today podcast, you heard a different story. You heard a story about an administration that is beleaguered in inactivity, that arranges Q&A's solely to hide from accountability, that is engaging in petty politics, that has refused to innovate, and is *possibly* trying to mislead newcomers by congratulating an Interior Ministry for their hard work recruiting.
Click to expand...

The word story suggests, to me at least, that there was intent, a narrative. we had no narrative I have now listened to my own broadcast 3 times, (I know, I have no life) We were as chaotic as ever, our criticisms land in a specific areas, not a general "this government sucks". (Visibility I might point out was a point in Trinn's Platform) this paragraph also makes it seem like we had nothing positive to say, at no point do you say you are addressing our criticisms, it would be reasonable for someone who doesn't have 90 minutes for listening to this to assume that the entire broadcast was a slash fest. Some responses won't help this assumption
Trinnien said:
You know you guys were hammering the administration, there was no counter debate in the program or voice presented to talk in opposition to your views, and you did it on the government sponsored radio show.
Click to expand...
I went back to listen because I'm certain we didn't only hammer, we had some good stuff to say and a message that things were improving.
Anumia said:
Opposition attacks Government, usually by saying nothing/nothing of value is happening, Government responds in their defence, Opposition asserts the Government is stomping on them/suggesting they don't belong in Europeia, Government points out that the long-held freedom of speech for all citizens has not changed, the Opposition refuses to either put up or shut up, and continues attacking.
Click to expand...
and an opinion from a respected member that apparently suggests we are in opposition...
But despite what others may tell you, I promise I will spend every day left in this term working for you.
Click to expand...
I don't recall us suggesting that you wouldn't, we said it would be difficult for you because your period to get things set up, in the way you as president want, will significantly bite into the the time you had. I feel it would be reasonable for someone to think we had been misusing a government channel to attack you and your government
 
No. Not what I said.

I don't think the EBC should run content with the sole purpose of bashing the administration. The intent. Why would an arm of the administration attack itself? Makes no sense to me, when government information operations are meant to advance the agenda of the administration.

Now, if there is a panel discussion and panelists hold some views counter to the administration's positions, that is distinct from designing, developing, and distributing anti-administration content through administration channels.
 
Deepest House said:
No. Not what I said.
Click to expand...
But, it actually is.

I'll just add this: I've always been of the thought that the Ministry of Communkcations, EBC and Mixlr included, is not the appropriate forum for attacking the administration. That's best left to private media. I'm also surprised the Minister would allow that to happen, as they serve at the request and pleasure of the president.
Click to expand...

The Minister of Communications is responsible for what happens on Mixlr, yes. I agree, but when it comes to EuroToday we should welcome commentators. They're putting in time and effort to be a part of a political exchange and add to our Mixlr culture when many simply don't. It's not like the Minister or the Deputies are going to debrief every commentator on what is going to be talked about and then advise them on what to say or what not to say. It's a talk show that's meant to talk about things that have happened over the past week, and issues relating to Europeia. Sometimes that means you'll have a lot of people who don't agree with the Administration. That's not the Minister's fault. If the Administration wants to get surrogates on air, that's their ball. Anyone is free to be on the Mixlrs and participate. Carrot and Kuramia have done a great job. And, outside of the context of "oh this was a little bit rough" the Mixlr was actually one of our better ones: there was very little off-topic discussion and the commentators and moderators stuck to the issues.
 
The word story suggests, to me at least, that there was intent, a narrative. we had no narrative I have now listened to my own broadcast 3 times, (I know, I have no life) We were as chaotic as ever, our criticisms land in a specific areas, not a general "this government sucks". (Visibility I might point out was a point in Trinn's Platform) this paragraph also makes it seem like we had nothing positive to say, at no point do you say you are addressing our criticisms, it would be reasonable for someone who doesn't have 90 minutes for listening to this to assume that the entire broadcast was a slash fest. Some responses won't help this assumption
Click to expand...

I think how we are looking past each other here is the difference between having an "agenda" and a "tone." Saying the interview had an agenda, which implies it was some sort of setup to attack me — is untrue and wrong. However, by fate or God's will, the interview did have a tone. I was intending to rebuttal that tone, that consensus.

The open and free expression of ideas is what makes us great. I would never try to stifle that, I would never want to. However, I think there was one narrative — one perspective — offered in the EBC Radio segment, and another offered here. Europeians are welcome to pick which they feel is more accurate.
 
I think you're taking a few liberties with the context in which I made my statement, given that you excluded my comment about panelists and the intent of the broadcast.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for a minister to say that anti-administration programming be taken to private media. Panel discussions that include a variety of viewpoints, without the explicit intent to damage the credibility of the administration, can in the context of Europia and NationStates be allowed, though.

Of course, just my opinion and ymmv.
 
Cpt.Carrot said:
That wasn't directed specifically at you, maybe "language and phrasing that can interpreted" would have been more appropriate wording. It is a matter of what people see.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, Carrot. Everyone knows you well enough to know you weren't trying to be nasty.
 
This is all very meta: a debate about the debate that the President started about a debate.

Whatever the nature of the criticism, the panelists knew their comments would draw a response from the Executive. If they didn't, well, now they know. Welcome to the NFL, where every public statement becomes fair game. And while I didn't think the Euro today episode was that rough, I honestly don't understand what was expected in return, besides ... I don't know. A thank you?

My God have we become so debate-averse that we shy away from issues to focus on intent and good/bad faith? Grow some balls everyone.

And if free speech had been infringed upon, the audio would have been deleted and the panelists would have been banned. Nobody. Is. A. Victim. Here. FFS.
 
Deepest House said:
I don't think it would be unreasonable for a minister to say that anti-administration programming be taken to private media.
Click to expand...
And this is precisely the sort of "government channels for ball-licking" that does damage to our vibrancy. I hope we're vocal in opposition to neutering the EBC based on real-life anxieties.

I can't take your viewpoint seriously when you systematically seek to deploy your anxieties and prejudices to the absolute destruction of Comms.
 
It just depends on if you think it is appropriate for an administration Comms channel to bash its own administration, when said Comms channel is established to promote the agenda of the administration.

Again, it isn't unreasonable to think otherwise. And free discussion should absolutely be encouraged, but an administration's communications arm has no obligation to be fair and balanced.

You think we sit around writing content that bashes the administration in my agency? That's ludicrous.

That said, NS is not real life and I think there is room for panel discussions with a variety of viewpoints. But administration content with the expressed purpose of undermining said administration is beyond the pale.
 
I'll just that I say this as a vocal critic of this administration since day one. I'm certainly not shilling for them. It's just a fundamental philosophy that I hold. I'd make the same statements regardless of the administration.
 
I dont really care about this entire thing because I think the administration is doing fine. Not great, but fine . And more really cant be expected from an administration that lost its President half way through and had to have its VP stand up, who went into this whole term, of course, from the position of a VP. That had to take some time to pivot and reorganize. So lets not go to either extreme.

But now to why Im actually posting: Ive always thought of the EBC less as a propaganda machine that is only allowed to trumpet pro-administration things and more as a government supported media outlet that none the less adheres to journalistic ethics including impartiality, truthfulness, and public accountability. I would say that certainly includes sharing the opinions of those that are more critical of the administration, as in the case of the recent episode of Euro Tonight, as well as the opinions of those more pro-administration, as in the case of HEMs Op-Ed.
 
Klatonia said:
This is all very meta: a debate about the debate that the President started about a debate.

Whatever the nature of the criticism, the panelists knew their comments would draw a response from the Executive. If they didn't, well, now they know. Welcome to the NFL, where every public statement becomes fair game. And while I didn't think the Euro today episode was that rough, I honestly don't understand what was expected in return, besides ... I don't know. A thank you?

My God have we become so debate-averse that we shy away from issues to focus on intent and good/bad faith? Grow some balls everyone.

And if free speech had been infringed upon, the audio would have been deleted and the panelists would have been banned. Nobody. Is. A. Victim. Here. FFS.
Click to expand...
This. And it feels like the last twenty-odd posts have been, "What you said was this" "No, here's what I said" "Well I think you'll find you actually meant this"

Bloody hell people.
 
I always thought of the EBC as a dynamic C-Span channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top